Ubi Dubium wrote:Oh, yes, Please!Tiny cheap copies that we can purchase by the case, and distribute when proclaiming his noodly goodness. In a cover that looks like a NT when seen from a distance.

I would buy these by the case and distribute them. If this ever goes to print i'll be standing in the main hall of my old university with my eyepatch and hat spreading the word! I've used the pamphlets before, but i'll find out when the fundies will be there and set up right next to them with my little books.

Roy Hunter wrote:Then, when you've got to know them a bit and their defences are down, you go all Scott the Pirate on them...

I re-read the gospel recently. More skimmed it, really. But I was sort of put off by the (however good natured) jabs at other religions, and intense parody of Christianity.

It's good to be able to laugh at ourselves as a whole species, and all the quirky things we do, but you can't insult someone if you want to say something to them. At least, something more than the insult. Which doesn't have to be mean spirited, but the fact of the matter is, stuff in the book insults people, and so they get caught up in being offended and don't get around to getting the message.

daftbeaker wrote:But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple'

Any statistical increase in the usage of the emoticon since becoming Admin should not be considered significant, meaningful, or otherwise cause for worry.

Qwertyuiopasd wrote:I re-read the gospel recently. More skimmed it, really. But I was sort of put off by the (however good natured) jabs at other religions, and intense parody of Christianity.

It's good to be able to laugh at ourselves as a whole species, and all the quirky things we do, but you can't insult someone if you want to say something to them. At least, something more than the insult. Which doesn't have to be mean spirited, but the fact of the matter is, stuff in the book insults people, and so they get caught up in being offended and don't get around to getting the message.

I agree. I think that's the biggest problem with our church. But remember that we have no dogma, and we're not bound to agree with everything the Gospel says. A new book that pushed religious tolerance wouldn't be a bad idea though. I think we need to make more of an attempt to befriend the religious groups. Me and my congregation at Rutgers have been reaching out to the religious organizations on campus and actually have made a lot of progress. We're even cool with Campus Crusade for Christ, who are evangelicals that put a lot of stock in the Bible.

I tried to start a group called D.A.S.H. (Duluth Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists) on campus and those CCC people tore down all of our posters! I took video of them doing it on more than one occasion and went to the head of the "posting police". She said "maybe they don't like the idea of that kind of a group". I asked if i could tear theirs down because i don't like their group and asked which of the vice-chancellors she reports to and she changed her tune REAL quick. Guess what happened to the CCC's though.....nothing.

Roy Hunter wrote:Then, when you've got to know them a bit and their defences are down, you go all Scott the Pirate on them...

One thing is of a certainty: Any new books, sequels what have you's must maintain the humor and explicit parody. I really do believe sometimes that L. Ron Hubbard started his 'Scientology' as a joke, or at the least a way to show how gullible the general public is...and you see what happened in that case! So keep it pointed, keep it humorous, and keep the parody and satire in the forefront.

If you think L. Ron Hubbard started Scientology as a joke, then I think you're vastly overestimating the power of the human imagination. Dianetics came first, and Scientology is the wholesome and practical application of his "scientifically supported" findings. If dianetics actually worked, it might even make some iota of sense to conclude some of the weird things he did. Or at least, the wild, off-the-wall conspiracy theories about psychologists and aliens and thetans would fit nicely into one worldview and not cause any nasty contradictions.

Ham Nox wrote:If you think L. Ron Hubbard started Scientology as a joke, then I think you're vastly overestimating the power of the human imagination. Dianetics came first, and Scientology is the wholesome and practical application of his "scientifically supported" findings. If dianetics actually worked, it might even make some iota of sense to conclude some of the weird things he did. Or at least, the wild, off-the-wall conspiracy theories about psychologists and aliens and thetans would fit nicely into one worldview and not cause any nasty contradictions.

You pretty much lost me when you declared "Scientology is the wholesome and practical application of his "scientifically supported" findings" Nothing wholesome, nor particularly practical about Scientology, merely an elaborate pyramid scheme wrapped up in a meta-physical blanket, and obfuscating pseudo-psychobabble.

Your second observation that Hubbards' weird actions and such might possibly stem from the actual application of his 'dianetics' is rather a silly way of saying the guy was a certifiable loony, especially towards the end...but isn't that afterall the condition of all the known 'prophets'?

Didereaux wrote:You pretty much lost me when you declared "Scientology is the wholesome and practical application of his "scientifically supported" findings" Nothing wholesome, nor particularly practical about Scientology, merely an elaborate pyramid scheme wrapped up in a meta-physical blanket, and obfuscating pseudo-psychobabble.

Did I make it sound like Scientology actually was the wholesome and practical application of dianetics, or that it really was scientifically supported? I hope I didn't. That's what it's supporters purport it to be. Really, it's just a weird idea put to an even weirder application and then quantified to make it look almost plausible and sciency.

On the other hand, I find it funny that they have a Sea Org. So close to being pirates, and yet so so so so so so far....

Scott the Pirate wrote:I tried to start a group called D.A.S.H. (Duluth Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists) on campus and those CCC people tore down all of our posters! I took video of them doing it on more than one occasion and went to the head of the "posting police". She said "maybe they don't like the idea of that kind of a group". I asked if i could tear theirs down because i don't like their group and asked which of the vice-chancellors she reports to and she changed her tune REAL quick. Guess what happened to the CCC's though.....nothing. :x

That's a shame! My school doesn't have any secular groups. I think perhaps because it's just a community college. It always seems so difficult to get groups like that started though.

hazelleosu wrote:That's a shame! My school doesn't have any secular groups. I think perhaps because it's just a community college. It always seems so difficult to get groups like that started though.

When in any situation like this, I think it will take patience and perserverance to get through to other people. You could do as Platypus Enthusiast and Scott say, by printing the leaflets/posters and distributing them. If you maintain a rapport with the religious groups on campus, showing that you don't want to, for want of a better word, convert people away from religion, then it may work better than you think. If you also maintain that it will be open to all people, regardless of beliefs, you may even be successful in getting some to think more critically about their views.

This can be a problem, whereby Christians can be quite vitriolic without most people even batting an eyelid, but as soon as a secular Humanist says something along similar lines, out come the comments about "going to Hell" and "ruining the country." I wish you luck in your endeavours.

Roland Deschain - Half prophet, half gunslinger, all Pastafarian!

"Since Alexander Pearce escaped, over 250 people have disappeared in the Tasmanian wilderness. No remains have ever been found." - Dying Breed

You can also point out that, as is the case with all scientific studies, a little scrutiny never did any genuinely idea any harm. The methods of reason, of science, call for scrutiny and scepticism of all ideas and theories. The good ones stand up to scrutiny, and gain credibility as a result.

All you are offering to do is to subject religious ideas to the same sort of 'peer review' that gives credibility to ideas like the bacterium H. Pylori causing stomach ulcers (thereby enabling ulcers to be cured with antibiotics instead of risky surgery, which saved enormous amounts of money and many lives in the process), but exposes the flummery of people like Andrew Wakefield and his MMR-autism link.

If religious people have faith in their ideas, in their belief system, then surely they cannot have any objection to it being subjected to a bit of questioning? You are not rejecting them outright without examining them, you are subjecting them to sceptical (not cynical) scrutiny. If their ideas are right, what do they have to be afraid of?

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cynical and cruel; but I am, so that's how it comes out." Bill Hicks."One should not believe everything one reads on the internet." Abraham Lincoln"Are you OK?" daftbeaker (<-- very good question, people should ask it more often.)